Environmental Biology of Fishes

, Volume 97, Issue 8, pp 875–880

Differences in resource assimilation between the unisexual Amazon molly, Poecilia formosa (Poeciliidae) and its sexual host (Poecilia latipinna)

  • Laura Alberici da Barbiano
  • Reginald J. Robinson
  • Michael Tobler
  • Andrea S. Aspbury
  • Caitlin R. Gabor
Article
  • 158 Downloads

Abstract

Unisexual sperm-dependent species depend on a sexual host for reproduction, and must live in sympatry with their sperm donor. If niche overlap between the species is substantial, the intrinsic faster population growth of the unisexual over sexual species can cause competitive exclusion of the host from resources, causing the demise of the unisexual species. However, theoretical models predict that coexistence is possible, even without niche differentiation, if the unisexual species is a poorer competitor than the sexual host and if the effect of the unisexual species on the exploitative abilities of the sexual species is smaller than the effect that the sexually reproducing individuals have among themselves. We tested these predictions in the unisexual-bisexual mating complex of Poecilia formosa, and one of its sexual hosts, P. latipinna. Fishes were housed from parturition for 76 days with both conspecific and heterospecific individuals under both limited and ad libitum food regimes. Only one of the predictions of the models was met: the effects of intraspecific competition for P. latipinna were stronger than the effects of interspecific competition. Poecilia latipinna raised with conspecifics with limited food stored fewer fats than both heterospecific P. formosa, and conspecifics raised in any other treatment.

Keywords

Amazon molly Body condition Competition Gynogenesis 

References

  1. Alberici da Barbiano L, Waller J, Aspbury AS, Gabor CR (2010) Differences in competitive efficiency between a sexual parasite and its host provide insight into the maintenance of a sperm-dependent vertebrate species. J Fresh Ecol 25:523–530CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alberici da Barbiano L, Aspbury AS, Nice CC, Gabor CR (2011) The impact of social context on male mate preference in a unisexual-bisexual mating complex. J Fish Bio 79:194–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Avise JC, Trexler JC, Travis J, Nelson WS (1991) Poecilia mexicana is the recent female parent of the unisexual fish P. formosa. Evolution 45:1530–1533CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Balsano JS, Kucharski K, Randle EJ, Rach EM, Monaco PJ (1981) Reduction of competition between bisexual and unisexual females of Poecilia in northeastern Mexico. Env Bio Fish 6:39–48Google Scholar
  5. Choleva L, Apostolou A, Rab P, Janko K (2008) Making it on their own: sperm dependent hybrid loaches (Cobitis; Teleostei) switch the sexual hosts and expand beyond the ranges of their original sperm-donors. Phil Trans Royal Soc London, B 363:2911–2919CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Connell JH (1961) The influence of interspecific competition and other factors on the distribution of the barnacle Chthamalus stellatus. Ecology 42:710–723CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dawley RM (1989) An introduction to unisexual vertebrates. In: Dawley RM, Bogart JP (eds) Evolution and ecology of unisexual vertebrates. New York State Museum, Albany, NY, pp 1–28Google Scholar
  8. Dawley RM, Bogart JP (1989) Evolution and ecology of unisexual vertebrates. New York State Museum, Albany, NYGoogle Scholar
  9. Doncaster CP, Pound GE, Cox SJ (2000) The ecological cost of sex. Nature 404:281–285PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fisher C, Schlupp I (2009) Differences in thermal tolerance in coexisting sexual and asexual mollies (Poecilia, Poeciliidae, Teleostei). J Fish Biol 74:1662–1668CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gabor CR, Ryan MJ (2001) Geographical variation in reproductive character displacement in mate choice by male sailfin mollies. Proc Royal Soc London B 268:1063–1070CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gause GF (1934) The struggle for existence. William & Wilkins Co, Baltimore, MDCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Jones W, Gurney WSC, Speirs DC, Bacon PJ, Youngson AF (2002) Seasonal growth, expenditure and assimilation in juvenile Atlantic salmon. J Anim Ecol 71:916–924CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lively CM, Lloyd DG (1990) The cost of biparental sex under individual selection. Am Nat 135:489–500CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Maynard Smith J (1968) Evolution in sexual and asexual populations. Am Nat 102:469–473CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Maynard Smith J (1971) What use is sex? J Theor Biol 30:319–335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Park T (1948) Experimental studies of interspecies competition. I. Competition between populations of the flour beetles, Tribolium confusum Duval and Tribolium castaneum Herbst. Ecol Monogr 18:265–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Riesch R, Plath M, Makowicz A, Schlupp I (2012) Behavioural and life-history regulation in a unisexual/bisexual mating system: does male mate choice affect female reproductive histories? Biological J Lin Soc 106:598–606CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Scharnweber K, Plath M, Winemiller KO, Tobler M (2011a) Dietary niche overlap in sympatric asexual and sexual livebearing fishes Poecilia spp. J Fish Biol 79:1769–1773CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Scharnweber K, Plath M, Tobler M (2011b) Feeding efficiency and food competition in coexisting sexual and asexual livebearing fishes of the genus Poecilia. Env Bio Fish 90:197–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Schartl M, Wilde B, Schlupp I, Parzefall J (1995a) Evolutionary origin of a parthenoform, the Amazon molly, Poecilia formosa, on the basis of a molecular genealogy. Evolution 49:827–835CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Schartl M, Nanda I, Schlupp I, Wilde B, Epplen JT, Scmidt M, Parzefall J (1995b) Incorporation of subgenomic amounts of DNA as compensation for mutational load in a gynogenetic fish. Nature 373:68–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Schley D, Doncaster CP, Sluckin T (2004) Population models of sperm-dependent parthenogenesis. J Theor Bio 229:559–572CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Schlupp I (2005) The evolution of gynogenesis. Ann Rev Eco, Evo Syst 36:399–417CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Schlupp I, Riesch R (2011) Evolution of unisexual reproduction. In: Evans J, Pilastro A, Schlupp I (eds) Ecology and Evolution of Poeciliid Fishes. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 50–58Google Scholar
  26. Schlupp I, Ryan MJ (1996) Mixed-species shoals and the maintenance of a sexual-asexual mating system in mollies. Anim Behav 52:885–890CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Schlupp I, Taebel-Hellwig A, Tobler M (2010) Equal fecundity in asexual and sexual mollies (Poecilia). Env Bio Fish 88:201–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Schoener T (1971) Theory of feeding strategies. Ann Rev Ecol Syst 2:369–404CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Tilman D (1977) Resource competition between plankton algae: an experimental and theoretical approach. Ecology 58:338–348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Tobler M (2008) Divergence in trophic ecology characterizes colonization of extreme habitats. Biol J Linn Soc 95:517–528CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Tobler M, Schlupp I (2010) Differential susceptibility to food stress in neonates of sexual and asexual mollies (Poecilia, Poeciliidae). Evol Ecol 24:39–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Laura Alberici da Barbiano
    • 1
  • Reginald J. Robinson
    • 1
  • Michael Tobler
    • 2
  • Andrea S. Aspbury
    • 1
  • Caitlin R. Gabor
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of BiologyTexas State UniversitySan MarcosUSA
  2. 2.Department of ZoologyOklahoma State UniversityStillwaterUSA

Personalised recommendations